[Debian-med-packaging] Bug#807580: More licensing issues (Was: BLAT license)

[Michael Lawrence]

Sorry accidentally hit send. Anyway, rtracklayer's license should not
affect the license of any of its dependencies. At least, the R
community has never taken that stance, as far as I know.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Michael Lawrence <michafla at gene.com> wrote:
> Are you guys saying that an R package that depends on another R
> package is considered a derivative work? If so, there are probably an
> enormous number of CRAN/Bioc packages in violation. My choice of
> license for rtracklayer should not affect the
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Charles Plessy <plessy at debian.org> wrote:
>> Le Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 08:47:42AM -0800, Jim Kent a écrit :
>>> Sorry not to get back to you sooner.  I'm just getting a lot of
>>> post-vacation mail pile up.
>>>
>>> A copyleft license sounds like it would work.  In particular I would be
>>> happy to distribute it under Common Development and Distribution License
>>
>> Thanks Jim for your help !
>>
>> The GNU General Public License is said to be incompatible with the Common
>> Development and Distribution License, and I worry that it may cause problem to
>> Bioconductor modules that directly or transitively depend or import from
>> rtracklayer.
>>
>> If you are looking for a non-GPL alternative, the Mozilla Public License
>> version 2.0 has similar features to the CDDL (it shares a common ancestor), but
>> is compatible with the GPL.
>>
>> Have a nice Sunday,
>>
>> --
>> Charles Plessy
>> Debian Med packaging team,
>> http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
>> Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan